tv Bulls Bears FOX Business February 8, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm EST
and that gives you off on the right foot for the weekend. connell: we are trying to death the day. thank you for joining us and on that note, have a great weekend. elizabeth: bowls and bears and starts right now. ♪. david: the world's richest man battling with a media conglomerate linked to the world most powerful man, who will win out and fight between jeff bezos and parent company the national enquirer. here to sound off on this and more are both and bears panel with morgan, jonas, zachary and gary b smith. jeff bezos founder of amazon and owner of the washington post accusing the inquirer of attempted blackmail and extortion for threatening to release racy photos of himself and his girlfriend if he did not call off the post investigation into the tablet magazine. deidra bolton has been following the story from the newsroom.
what is the latest? reporter: a few news outlets are reporting that federal prosecutors are reviewing the national enquirer's handling of the story involving jeff bezos affair and try to determine whether or not the tabloid violated a prior immunity agreement. american media, national enquirer's parent company, was granted immunity last year in connection with the assistance into michael cohen and present transformer personal lawyer. that agreement required the company to agree to commit the crimes whatsoever and that is legal language but jeff bezos says that exactly what is happening. he's accusing the national enquirer of extortion and blackmail. the friction between the magazine and founder and ceo of amazon started about one month ago when the magazine published an exposé into the affair between bezos and a former news anchor and helicopter pilot,
lauren sanchez. national enquirer said it had seen explicit photos of bezos so at the time he hired a private investigator to find out how the magazine got the tax. bezos claims the national enquirer got anxious about his investigation and increased the threats against him to stop the investigation so according to bezos, it included blackmail and extortion. in a bold strategic move on thursday he published everything. the list of all the racy photos that the magazine claims to have and tons of e-mails. the e-mails, according to his post, look as if there from lawyers representing the national enquirer and magazine execs. bezos saying if in my position i can't stand up to this extortion, how many people can? american media responded saying they believe it's fervently active lawfully in the reporting of the story of mr. bezos' and nonetheless, in light of the nature of the allegation published by mr. bezos' the
board has convened to determine that it should probably and thoroughly investigate the claims. legal experts say american media lawyer can claim the e-mails between lawyers and trying to resolve a dispute, find a compromise, what would be criminal, without a shadow of the doubt, is that american media stole the photos in the text, hacked somehow or otherwise somehow illegally obtained them. david, lots of fodder for the lawyers for a while to come. david: interesting stuff. deidra, thank you. let's bring an attorney and former federal prosecutor doug. doug does bezos have any case? >> look, let's talk this factor. extortion you have to threaten physical harm or harm to reputation and it can be in exchange for money which is a more prevalent one, pay me $10,000 or say you did x, y or z or something else of value. break it down. they are saying we will publish these pictures unless you step forward and say this
investigation or this breaking of the story wasn't for political reasons. technically it does meet the parameters however, in the real world it's more of an opening gambit and you need to shore it up for verbal presentation. >> surprisingly, doug, they're in an immunity agreement and working with federal prosecutors this would be the time to back away and be on your best later. >> absolutely critical point. morgan, they signed an agreement with our southern district of new york. >> not the friendliest of lawyers. >> i seen these agreements. simple to relation is when you sign an agreement you go home and be on your best behavior. to come out and do this is surprising but let's talk real quick about what can happen. that agreement could be voided in the sense that they're not being prosecuted on that campaign matter so they're looking at trouble. that may be why jeff bezos may have gone out in front realize it would back him on the hill.
>> what i understand, let's forget the fact it doesn't make sense for the sky of the national enquirer to pick a fight not just buy it but by the barrel. they own a third of the cloud and we have services and dangerous individual to mess with, not a playboy bunny. is this similar to the - executive who was shaken down by gawker and we know how that ended. there's no more gawker media. >> you read my mind that i was on the front with a 60 -year-old veteran lawyer and i said why in the world would they do this? he said to me very uncharacteristically, i can't figure that out yet i need more information. it doesn't seem at all from any kind of logic or sherlock holmes analyst why in the world would you risk, as morgan said, violating the agreement you signed and be, briskly down the road. >> could be because he thought bezos that about the gawker peter said you should not dig to
grace and let it roll off your back. he sounded like someone would never do this and now he's the one seeking revenge. did he catch them offguard perhaps? >> maybe a little bit and a little to be gleaned from the statement. it wasn't that typical in-your-face lawyer type stuff that scorched earth. we will look at this. >> it did allow the new york post to run the best headline of any newspaper. [laughter] >> we can't say it on air. [laughter] >> that being said, why did this happen? peter did not explicitly - that maybe his personality to go after them or go through the legal process but why is this so rare? >> look, these decisions are law and public relations coming together in a conference room and sit down and make educated guesses and sometimes they're good and bad. you have raised the key thing which it seemed inadvisable but for some reason they got
together in a common service said if we back them on the heels now and raise this thing up to be a broken record about immunity agreement will get the relief were seeking and is the only way i can handicap that. i don't think it's a full on extortion case but i think it may back them up. david: doug, two-part question. first, it seems or maybe this is the question does a lot of the case rest on the illegality or legality of how they got the photos and be, how could they have gotten the photos? sanchez brother, i think, said he was not involved and i was the first pegylation so wondering how they could've gone photos of this place. >> critical questions because it's a little different, gary the new formula to the point. if the material is readily
available in the public domains of i say to david asman, pay me a thousand dollars or so for view on the beach for the photos available to the public that takes the extortion aspect out. the brother who is described as a proton figure, lauren sanchez brother, did he play a role but back to your initial observation i wanted to make this point and it will be more important whether or not the updated illegally and i think that is a crime on this fact pattern more notable than the possible extortion crime and that is why, in my opinion, things got backed up spirit reporters to post legally obtained information from a national security perspective. when they have leakers in the us government that makes information it's illegal to leak crimes of information. seemingly, it's more highbrow than the other but i guess what i'm wondering is a standard here when a reporter get classified information from leakers which is legal versus the - >> major double standards permeating all over the place.
no, no, it's a discussion and as a lawyer for 33 years you can imagine my reaction when i see somebody foaming at the mouth about one thing i don't want to get it specific to make it nonpolitical and then ten times in reverse it's worse. you get that all the time. here, coupled with the threatening him, if in fact they got it illegally they could have problems. david: is a possible that bezos is trying to open a process of discovery which by he find out who it is the leak these photos? >> that is always something we talk about. absolutely right. get some illegal legal context where things are discoverable and obtainable. that is another part keep up of the legal game plan they put in place. >> but doug, for the sake of argument, if american media bought them like they do from sanchez friend because she is excited to show that she saw the dingdong of the richest man in the world -
>> not the word used in the post. >> trying to tone it down. [laughter] and then american media used to shake down or control their behavior is that legal as long as they didn't hack or anything? >> it's the root of a tree. if it's obtained in the first instance legally someone has full authorization to have it simply provided for someone that it will not be infected down the line. having trouble following your injunction with the headline in the post. [laughter] david: it is the name of the guy in charge of that national enquirer. >> on make a serious point. false definite mission in here that headline which i will not say but could appear to a reasonable person, oh my god, that guy exposed. david: here is the richest guy in the world, made his money dealing with the internet, not realizing that the naked selfie will find its way into public arena. >> if he can't stop this, is anyone safe?
>> it's not just for teenagers. don't take itself these. [inaudible conversations] david: thank you very much. the clock is ticking for the us and china to strike a trade de deal. the white house just releasing the names of administration officials who will be trying to make that happen next week. there is one notable absence from that name and we will tell you who that is coming next. ♪ to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal?
it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture now might not be the best time to ask yourself are my bones strong? life is full of make-or-break moments. that's why it's so important to help reduce your risk of fracture with prolia®. only prolia® is proven to help strengthen
and protect bones from fracture with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip, or tongue swelling; rash; itching; or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia® as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium, serious infections, which could need hospitalization, skin problems, and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. are you ready? ask your doctor how prolia® can help strengthen your bones.
it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. with who we are as people and making everybody feel welcome. ordering custom ink t-shirts has been a really smart decision for our business. i love the custom ink design lab because it's really easy to use. they have customer service that you can reach anytime. t-shirts help us immediately get a sense of who we are as a group. from the moment clients walk in, they're able to feel like part of the family. - [spokesman] custom ink has hundreds of products for your business and free shipping. upload your logo or start your design today david: us trade delegation heading to china with pressure mounting on the two countries to forge a deal with senior white house official telling foxbusiness the march 1st date
to increase tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods is firm in the white house releasing a list of the members headed to china next week in the trade delegation and noticeably absent from the list was trade hawk, peter navarro. the markets rebounded slightly on that news. what does it mean that peter navarro is apparently not going? >> i will give you the headline on that and then give you my thoughts because they are vastly more important. [laughter] the headline is it is positive. navarro is a tree talk and you think that if he is not going we be a little more amenable to putting a deal that made sense for both countries. my thought is it really doesn't matter not about navarro but you get right down to the bottom line and you have two countries with a combined gdp of nearly $35 trillion, even if every
dollar of the 200 billion, 25% is collected, which it won't be and there will be workarounds, countries will - china, us will shift through or import through different countries to avoid the tariffs but even if every dollar is collected in amounts to .2% of that gdp number. it is nothing, it's a rounding error. my take away is i'd like something to happen in like there to be no tariffs but even if nothing gets accomplished we seen the tariffs but a place for a while and companies are reporting their earnings and there's a lot of smoke and nothing there. >> i agree in general and it's a good point to put this in the perspective of this fast relationship in the actual dollar amount being talked about and it's not $200 billion in tariffs which will be reported incorrectly for the next several weeks. the optics has been a disruptive saying and is unsettled in late capital spending projects and
delayed people investing whether deals be done and we saw the deal in wisconsin be disrupted and that is its own dynamic so i am much more in your camp of be willing to they look, it's always been an exaggerated economic phenomenon that is not an exaggerated optic one and the reality is come february it will matter what trump decides about tariffs, not what an unnamed white house official who may or may not have their own agenda and i say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek. >> assuming it's not just piecing together stories because there's no - it's random. it looks like it's a carrot and stick strategy were sticks with the arrest going on in ip and accusations with the robot in t-mobile so we been harsh on china the last few weeks. this is more like a bring the guy who really does not want to do a deal and is not one 100% in our favorite.
>> i don't know that there's a ton of daylight in between light heiser are aligned on these issues so what i think is the most interesting is that the president we have the deadline on march 1st but the president will be in asia not meeting with they been they forced they wanted a one a meeting with trump and he will be the norm in february 2728 meeting with kim jung-un and so for me the geopolitics and the strategic way the white house's plainness is interesting because kim jung-un is getting this one-on-one meeting with the president and presidency is not and he wants it because he believes he will get a better deal from the president once they meet. the president clearly holding out for that. >> there's a lot of talk about the president business friends who are trying to get him to strike some deal warning him that not only will it be bad for individual companies but the market, look at how the market reacted today. smallest bit of news one person off the list we were down over
300 points and it up down less than 100. >> there's a past four weeks of market rally and some of that is the fed backing up so the market had that and it's vastly oversold market but you have the china expectation big ten of there will be a deal because that's in everyone's interest and that's probably the operative assumption here which the non- presence bolsters that optic. david: democrats running for president in 2020 are storing their support around aoc green new deal but do they know what kind of impact it will have on the economy. economist peter is here to talk to us, coming next. ♪ i hear it in the background and she's watching too, saying [indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before.
that's why i cosponsored a resolution. people are going back on the green deal and saying it's not practical and too expensive but if we are use to govern our dream and that way we never go to the moon. david: governing our dreams. 2020 hopeful senator cory booker today and i was throwing his support behind congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez proposed green new deal and is not alone. the majority of the announced more likely 2020 candidates have a voiced support for the resolution. peter, professor emeritus at the university of maryland, concern about what effect this could have on the economy. what should all those candidates know about what impact it might have? >> and make them look like they're taking lsd. in order to have a dream that big you got to be on drugs. the reality is there talking -
the physics are impossible. let's back away. if they collected they will put a big emphasis again on green products the way barack obama did. they will boost the economy somewhat. if you spend more money the same thing if you build stadiums in all 32 nfl cities. you get more employment. but these investments will not work out. unlike the stadiums no one will show up. remember although solar panel deals that the president obama had going and the real projects? alexandria ocasio-cortez wants to get rid of airplanes. how will we get from new york to washington? how will she get to work? it will be . david: hard for the senators in hawaii. >> what will they do, cover the whole state of new jersey with solar panels? germany try to do this. with a 30 year type target and could not keep up or generate solar energy. long-term all these bad
investments, investments made from political reasons will have a negative effect on the economy and make it more difficult for cities to accomplish the abatement they need to. >> my colleagues will get into this with you but the economic side but looking at a political perspective i cannot get over how quickly these damn senators who clearly, they are no one on the staff bother to read this, utterly ludicrous. i thought it was notable that none of the governors and to be fair, no governors have announced but no one in this moderate governor lane came out for this yesterday i'm thinking where are the staff members for the senators? >> they are at the water cooler with the lsd, too. on the left there's this bubble now, they believe everything that trump says is bad so this is opposite of trump so it has to be good. the reality is to go to a
completely carbonless economy over 30 years worldwide requires 100 trillion additional kilowatts of electrical capaci capacity. germany going all out could not do its share over the last several years. you have to go nuclear. do you really want to be building nuclear plants all over the country? if you did, remember the united states only generates about 15% of the global greenhouse gases. it's only going to slow down climate change and make us terribly poor. it's miami that gets flooded instead of some other cities. >> i think were being overly critical. the problem is the ways they want to do it on visible but the concept - if it was executed right - >> no, - >> connecticut get most of the power from nuclear so granted i power was most extensive in the country after hawaii but it was
achievable at a higher price point and the problem is they are doing the hippie move where we don't want to go nuclear but there's definitely a way to power the country and do this over 30, 40 years with taxation if you're willing to pay more and willing to do nuclear instead of cold but you can't throw it all over the - and say we go back to the dark ages. as an economist, you have to think it's possible to do anything with the right incentives and taxes. >> i just discuss that. it's absolutely impossible. the physics are not present. we show me how we can have solar powered electric planes that transport 300 people that i willing to buy into the scenario you laid out but - >> elon musk would say - >> i did discuss ripping out but the problem is you get a hold of the market and start to do more inefficient things. they are costly to do and as a consequence the economy would then suffer. that is what is likely to happ happen. david: >> peter, there are moments
where government resources in the space race is one are necessary for a public endeavor that no individual private industry will go about. if you believe there should be a lower carbon future, it's completely unrealistic that it happened by 2030 or 2050 although you get a more reduction of carbon and more greener economy that would be also a newer one. massive in the structure but the segway here is the need for a structure and the need for this is neat. even if you take out the moonshot part of it there is a role for government in mobilizing these resources. >> the thing is the government run the extra structure was getting involved. there's no two ways around it. if you want me to say or get conservative to admit this is a role for government, i will give you that but that's hardly new or novel and that's not what they're talking about. they're talking about rejecting
the market process and completely jack putting the economy like the soviet union style and if you do that at the scale and at this level all i can say is start stirring canned food in the basement. this economy will be so broke you will be huddle down there and will have any fuel - think about it, you will have to install heat pumps in every home in america that uses natural gas or fuel oil, sir. i suggest you get busy. david: it's not just energy but part of it was and i'm quoting from her plan, we will guarantee economic security for every american unable or unwilling to work so all those people who don't want to work for a living will get guaranteed income by the government. >> that is a very silly you have more people who don't want to work. this is a way of driving the socialist agenda through energy policy. it has great political appeal.
she will run around that district if they are put everyone to work building solar powered cars. isn't that a keen idea? by the way, bloomberg trashed the plan. bloomberg. >> and pelosi. don't forget, plus he put the nail on the carbon. david: peter, thank you for joining us. after facing major backlash from local politicians, amazon might be reconsidering its move to the big apple. should it? ♪ >> if amazon does not come to new york, it's because of the political opposition. ♪ every feeling, a product of mastery. lease the 2019 es 350 for $399 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. what comes next? ♪ so you're planning for retirement. ♪ retirement? after that. after retirement? after planning for retirement. oh... retirement.
do i use a toothpaste that whitens my teeth, or one that's good for my teeth? now i don't have to choose. from crest 3d white, the whitening therapy collection with new spearmint and peppermint oil. it gently whitens, plus it has a fortifying formula to protect your enamel. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life.
david: amazon might be saying so long to new york city several local lawmakers have inviting the retail giant plans to build second headquarters in the big apple in new york governor andrew cuomo addressing the threats earlier today and here is what he had to say. >> it would be a tremendous loss and it is the largest economic development transaction in the
history of the state of new york. i understand politics very well. but i have never seen a more absurd situation where political pandering and obvious pandering, defeat the economic development project. david: is he right? is new york city blowing a great opportunity, turning out is lee, executive director of tech nyc and its working network of tech leaders in the city. julie, i can understand his position and you must be going out of your mind. everyone in long island city appears to want this thing but politicians are blocking it. >> identical what the governor said. the deal makes sense. the framework of the deal makes
sense for tens of thousands of new jobs to new york, high-tech, good paying jobs and all the other jobs that will bring to the neighborhood. listen, think about the deal the need to get ironed out and that is fine and amazon can, should and will be a good neighbor but it doesn't mean of the deal. here is the thing, the jobs will go somewhere so why wouldn't we want them here? >> julie, here is my take on it. i can understand - normally i'm in favor of businesses moving into any place, new york city, san francisco but for my reading on this this will cost the city and i guess state, almost $3 billion. it sounds like one of these ddm deals and they're always touted as a big success, bring the washington nationals from montréal into dc, look at the economic development and study after study has shown it just does not work out. the cost benefit is never there.
especially in a city like new york city where they don't need amazon but amazon would be great and wonderful but there is no lack of desire for companies or people to move there but i'm interested in your take on it. >> the stadium thing is different. i think stadium jobs usually - majority of that being construction jobs and that is important but when you're talking amazon deal you're talking permanent jobs and talking about at a minimum, 25,000 and up to 40,000 permanent jobs. that is not even counting the construction jobs and other jobs at the outset you're already in a different world. >> wasn't - that permanent? i think they went overboard. i was neutral on this but this basal sky is getting - it's bad enough in a contest for over a year wherever state has to kiss his butt or city has offered him deal but come to our city it will give you whatever you want, tax-free, your own helipad and then gets the deal the greatest city in the world, that intersection problems and then
after the deal is like, you're not still kissing my butt so i'll take my billions ulcer. at this point like a king. >> to unpack the incentives, yes $3 billion but the thing were not cannot is 85% of that $3 billion package any company can get. it's not special for amazon. he was talking about that and that's part of the problem. the city money is 1.3 billion and any company has a right talking to new york and get that money if they do certain things like have employer's and outer boroughs. david: but anyone can get the governor to pander. >> who cares? will be one of the jobs, right? >> it's a little unclear what the origin of the story is or if amazon is seriously considering this or whether it was leaked as way of putting pressure. a lot of murky points.
it may be a lot more smoke than fire and what is weird about the opposition to this domestically in the city which there has been regardless of whether the story is true, under bloomberg and diblasio there's been a - inside if you're not from new york but to develop the outer boroughs of the city and make them as vibrant as manhattan. this is the perfect iteration of that and yet it's coming under fire. that part is a little odd to me. >> that part is important. what you're talking about is a part of the city, queens, for many years it was dependent on manufacturing jobs. those jobs are gone and not coming back. we should want these tech jobs. there the jobs of the future. should want them here for you new yorkers in the next generation of new yorkers. we should all be coming to the table to get this done and it is not perfect and work to do but we should be finding that the ford. >> why do you think - maybe it's a workforce issue but seems to me it could've been a great
political win to go to a rust belt state or southern state and when you look at major corporations most of them are moving to these kind of things where they can get a better quality of life for their employees and for me that was a spicy that they picked washington and new york which gets the ire of the rest of the country. >> in the tech ecosystem is a real competition for tech talent that's a great limiter for any tech company. increasingly, people who work in tech and they are young want to be in big cities and access to public transportation and access to arts and cultural institutions and the things that are uniquely urban and uniquely new york. david: julie, best of luck to you. tough sell with politicians in albany. >> it shouldn't be. david: i think it's a great idea. is maxine waters declaring war on big banks? where the biggest merger in a decade may be in big trouble. ♪ to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪
it's the most wonderful life on earth. comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast.
david: congresswoman vaccine waters be bringing down the gavel and a potential merger between bb&t and suntrust banks a deal that would great the sixth largest bank in the us which maxine waters has gone on to is proof that the president deregulation has gone too far. is this the beginning of a big bank crackdown or maybe she can't do that much? what you think, getting?
>> first of all, we've got to let go with the banks. i know everyone hates banks and make money and it's a question of business but the business is not really in itself one - these two banks even after they merge by a billion in assets are one fourth of a wells fargo. that is not even the biggest bank and the point is still not even control 10% of banking and while this is going on facebook but instagram now that company and google is more than half of all digital advertising. it's not some regional bank and other regional bank that might not be a business in 20 years. if there are consumers been hurt by this and if he is going up take a look but in general i don't think it's where but there's bigger problems in airlines when you go to new york and only two airlines. that's something they should look at. >> this is part of a bigger
theme that i think you'll see coming in that the left will want to get in there and break up any set of companies they deemed too big but here is the irony in the history of business even companies that were monopolies like standard oil never had a negative impact in standard oil brought they were never the way before the government broke them up and at&t would've been destroyed by wireless anyway and can you believe at some point we were worried about time warner merging with aol? [laughter] i understand why maxine waters is doing that and it gets her headlines and moves aoc from the front page for about 30 seconds but it just does not make any debt business sense to jonas' point.
>> there is a larger question which i'm sure we could revisit a much longer discussion about whether antitrust legislation in general in the 20th century was a good or bad thing for the consumer and for pricing. to join us this point, better for in the trust to focus on advertising and digital monopolies that would be on the seventh largest bank in the united states but nothing will happen from this. partly a reaction to the gutting of the consumer finance protection bureau whether you hate it or not, that's the reality. who will stand up for lending standards small businesses and they will hammer these leadership of both these institutions and say you better not tighten your lending standards and that is all that will happen. it's all a bit of sticking a moral ground but nothing will happen. >> i agree with my colleague. it's about exacting a pound of flesh for every especially for people who are running for president and if you want to do a big deal in the next year you
should be careful because it will have warren and others who are out to cooking each other. she came i find maxine waters saying it's important to note that maxine waters did blame this on the deregulation when in fact we know that the consolidation in the banking industry is a reaction to dodd frank because if you talk to senator in arkansas he stuck out because of that frank the local community bank in the counties he represents you are unable to give and the consolidation industry is not because of deregulation. it's a mess. >> is a classic case of - you have this with the farmers they can afford the regulatory burden of being certified by the us as organic so they call themselves natural because the cost of $100,000 to be organic. it is only through the dodd frank, regular tory cost of it is doing more to liberate some of the things locally. and that is been true for years and years under democrats animal
begins. >> why would they want to merge knowing they will get big enough to be more related? seems like they would want to stay at that size and fly under the radar and it's like why even draw this. >> the margins are terrible. >> to get back to zach's points maybe there should be antitrust regulation, if you will, on the online advertising and that's a rip what you're implying. that's another area i'm not worried about. 50 years ago saying if the billboard manufactures got together and say we have to crackdown on that and there's only one or two out there and they're taking up all the highway space. there will be some technology that replaces it just like everyone was worried that netscape would dominate the browser and they were a monopoly and then back soft came along. competition takes care of these monopolies a lot quicker and
david: love is in the air. that's what delta and coca-cola thought when they came out with their napkins that encouraged passengers to get to know each other in a flight. because you are in a plane full of iting people, hey, you never know. be old school, write down your number and government your plane crush. you never know. but some customers were not amused. calling these napkins creepy. now delta and coca-cola is apologizing. in this day and age, what do you
think when they are thinking? >> i think it's brilliant. if i were ahead of the marketing staff, i give them a pat on the back. the idea is silly and the typical backlash. but because they broke through the noise. that's what it's all about these days. getting out there and being the aoc of business. i think it's brilliant. i applaud the companies. >> i support that, too. i'm speechless at this reaction. i'm without speech at the sheer absurdity of why they felt the need to apologize. i'm sure people who -- that they are reacting to this in a negative fashion is extraordinary to me. >> we all agree with you. this is -- why do corporations have to apologize.
i am married. if somebody handed me the napkin would i say thank you, but i'm married. >> they should apologize for the food the napkins are supposed to help you clean up after. >> people interact online. >> there is a legitimate #metoo movement. >> i have never been treated bad on an airplane. >> people are acting like diet coke is the same as dissolving rufies. it's not crazy to go back teend old-fashioned time where you do it anonymously and you don't have to risk the rejection. it's not putting liquor bottles
on the plane and get them drunk. david: most of people felt that it wasn't so offensive. but there is such an immediate reaction to the #metoo movement. there are apps. but my friend tell me there are apps if you are on the plane, yoyou can find out who else is single who is on the plane with you. that's creepier. there are all kind of apps that allow you to do that. exactly. >> maybe somebody did. but this is more of a gesture of let's maintain some level -- which is how i would interpret these particular little napkins. david: after this panel
discussion they may change their minds. virgin atlantic had a similar policy where you could buy a drink for somebody and they pulled that policy as well. hey, gang, thank you so much. thanks for joining us. we'll see you next time. >> we must not going another amazon company town. this is a bad deal. it's bad for new york city, it's bad for queens and bad for new york city. the mayor and the governor caved to the richest man on earth and handed the bill to each and every new yorker. >> amazon's presence is vital to our efforts to safeguard the economy and and future downturns. liz: that was amazon battling the hard left new york city council. amazon may be ditching